France attempts to “civilize” the Internet; Internet fights back

A major "e-G8" gathering in Paris today saw French President Sarkozy telling …

For some time, French Pres. Nicolas Sarkozy has talked about his dream of a “civilized” Internet, but this dream has long been a nightmare for those who worry that “civilization” is really a code for “regulations favorable to big business and the national security state.” To make his vision a reality, Sarkozy helped to create this week's e-G8 meeting currently underway in the Tuileries Gardens next door to the Louvre—and the critics are fuming.

"I was invited to the e-G8 and declined," said author and activist Cory Doctorow recently. "I believe it's a whitewash, an attempt to get people who care about the Internet to lend credibility to regimes that are in all-out war with the free, open 'Net. On the other hand, I now have a dandy handwriting sample from Sarkozy should I ever need to establish a graphological baseline for narcissistic sociopathy."

Internet governance and civil society groups issued a statement charging that the "e-G8 Forum is organized by large Industry with access given only to industry and government actors… Big businesses already have a disproportionately large influence on public policy processes. For governments to sanction a dedicated meeting with top G8 leaders and officials to plan the global agenda for Internet related policies is inappropriate."

The French Internet activists at La Quadrature du Net have been even tougher. Governments "have entered an alliance with some of these companies, united in the fear of the new capabilities afforded to individuals by the Internet and computers," said spokesperson Jérémie Zimmermann.

So when Sarkozy took the stage of the e-G8 this morning, suspicions about his true motives were already rampant. And he did little to dispel them.

Be reasonable

It took Sarkozy only minutes to go from extolling the "third globalization" brought about by Internet companies—after the Age of Exploration and the Industrial Revolution—to delivering a parental lecture about "responsibility."

"You have a tremendous responsibility that weighs upon you," he told the assembled luminaries, who included people like Google's Eric Schmidt, and he demanded that Internet companies join national governments to jointly exercise the responsibilities. “The responsibility has to be shared between you and us.”

In Sarkozy's view, the dominant need right now is for control over this amazing, but rambunctious, resource we call the Internet. A few samples provide the overall flavor:

"Although technology in and of itself is neutral, and must remain so, the way that Internet is used is not neutral."

"The universe that you represent is not a parallel universe which is free of rules of law or ethics or of any of the fundamental principles that must govern and do govern the social lives of our democratic states."

"Don't forget that behind the anonymous Internet user there is a real citizen living in a real society and a real culture and a nation to which he or she belongs, with its laws and its rules."

Artists "must not be despoiled of the fruit of their talent. That doesn't simply ruin them, but far worse, it enslaves them."

Governments "wish to enter into dialogue with you so that we can defend one another's interests."

"[I am] calling for collective responsibility."

"What I am calling for is for everyone to be reasonable."

But "reasonable" turns out to be a contested idea. So does "civilized." Sarkozy made clear that his top concerns at the moment involve intellectual property (Internet companies must not "contribute to drying up this cultural wealth") and monopolies (some Internet companies have set up "empires"), apparently code for companies like Google.

France is famous for passing the world's toughest three strikes law against alleged Internet copyright infringers. As the European Digital Rights group notes French politicians use that law to bill themselves as the "world's pioneer of the civilized Internet."

Secondarily, Sarkozy called for better privacy protections—and not just for citizens in the face of rampant online tracking and data collection. No, people must be free to "lead their lives in peace," a cryptic comment that might indicate support for regulation preventing the Internet publication about facts regarding people's "private lives."

As e-G8 organizer, the ad mogul Maurice Lévy summed it up today, saying, "How can we go further? How, too, can we be even more respectful of the rights of others—their intellectual creations and their private lives?" (France's national data and privacy regulator, CNIL, did lament today that the e-G8 didn't go further by hosting sessions on things like the "right to be forgotten.")

The conference, which was suggested by Sarkozy but privately funded by companies like Orange, Google, eBay, Microsoft, HP, and more, concludes tomorrow.

Seems about as difficult as rewriting the rules of civilisation, you can guide and influence people somewhat but a government trying to shape the people into a specific mold never really works, we've had countless dictators try and fail. Trying with the internet would be like trying to do that to the entire world, I don't know what an elected president is doing pushing such ideas, I guess he's a dictator at heart.

What always strikes me is that goverments apparently think the internet is a bad thing for culture and talent, while I know no other place where culture and talent are in such abundance as on the internet.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that people can freely get away with things on the Internet that the government does not like. The decentralized nature of the Internet means that traditional regulators have a severe difficulty regulating everything, which results in a game of whack-a-mole for persistent governments (e.g. China).

Since it is hard to imagine laws that prevent people from actually thinking racist or bigoted thoughts or from actually wanting free access to copyrighted material, I think that this fundamentally is a losing battle.

Isaac Asimov wrote about the Galactic Empire in his Foundation series. In 'Foundation and Empire', he noted the three things that caused the collapse of the Empire: inertia, despotism, and maldistribution. The leaders feared change, they knew only force as their tool, and their goal was to keep the wealth they had gathered.

I see these factors at work in many of the governments of the world today. The Internet, like the technologically advanced Foundation of Asimov's novels, threatens all of them. Trying to "civilize" the Internet simply means bringing it under control, making it conform to the views of politicians who didn't grow up in a world that had it. Any effort to do so will fail, but I worry what will be attempted.

2. this is the last in the chain from WIPO, via ACTA, to now e-G8. (as someone pointed out to me, G8 oddly close to gate. Or in this case, e-gate)

3. This may well be the French leader most disconnected from the people he represents, since the revolution...

4. "Artists "must not be despoiled of the fruit of their talent. That doesn't simply ruin them, but far worse, it enslaves them."" unless i am totally off target, most artists are already slaves to their publisher/record company/studio...

Artists "must not be despoiled of the fruit of their talent. That doesn't simply ruin them, but far worse, it enslaves them."

I actually agree with this statement. The users of the Internet is partially enslaving the creators of works by allowing those works to be freely traded without compensation to the creator.

Of course, I still remain suspicious of Sarkozy's motivation - as I do with most politicians.

Piracy isn't the worst reality for artists. It's obscurity. If you don't want people to freely spread it, it won't be spread and people will look elsewhere. An artist living in an infinitely copyable universe will thrive if they can make the digital nature of their art work to their purpose. Viral popularity is one example.

Besides, the worst reality is censorship, and giving politicians like Sarkozy a free hand hurts artists because only those few in power have decide what is "civilized" and what isn't.

At last, an Ars article that acknowledges (if perhaps unintentionally) that "privacy" isn't necessarily something we should be in favor of. Any increase in privacy is a decrease in freedom.

Can you expand a bit on that? For example, I fail to see how your freedom is somehow infringed by my right to keep private my personal health information, or current location if we think iPhone logs. Perhaps what you meant is "Any restrictive government legislation that limits what you can post online is a decrease in freedom"?

I'm not advocating what Sarkozy is pushing, certainly, just don't understand exactly what you're trying to say.

Isaac Asimov wrote about the Galactic Empire in his Foundation series. In 'Foundation and Empire', he noted the three things that caused the collapse of the Empire: inertia, despotism, and maldistribution. The leaders feared change, they knew only force as their tool, and their goal was to keep the wealth they had gathered.

I see these factors at work in many of the governments of the world today. The Internet, like the technologically advanced Foundation of Asimov's novels, threatens all of them. Trying to "civilize" the Internet simply means bringing it under control, making it conform to the views of politicians who didn't grow up in a world that had it. Any effort to do so will fail, but I worry what will be attempted.

Artists "must not be despoiled of the fruit of their talent. That doesn't simply ruin them, but far worse, it enslaves them."

I actually agree with this statement. The users of the Internet is partially enslaving the creators of works by allowing those works to be freely traded without compensation to the creator.

Of course, I still remain suspicious of Sarkozy's motivation - as I do with most politicians.

Really? I can go to any of well, a lot of sites, webcomics, musicians, artists of all types are happy to have people look at, or listen to their work for free. Is there some huge slave factory pushing this stuff out? Not really, because these people don't make money from directly selling the base material. If you go out and buy a CD, the artist makes a couple of pennies. Most of that money goes to the producer. Musicians make money when they tour around and people go to see their shows. Webcomics make money by selling t-shirts, and books. Artists aren't enslaved by the "wild" internet. Artists are enslaved by outdated distribution models, and industry. There's plenty of ways for a quality artist to make good money even by giving away their primary art for free with new models.

Doesn't Ars typically argue for government regulation of the Internet on a weekly basis? Maybe Sarkozy should have claimed to be part of a self-described "consumer advocacy" group, and the reaction would be different.

At last, an Ars article that acknowledges (if perhaps unintentionally) that "privacy" isn't necessarily something we should be in favor of. Any increase in privacy is a decrease in freedom.

Can you expand a bit on that? For example, I fail to see how your freedom is somehow infringed by my right to keep private my personal health information, or current location if we think iPhone logs. Perhaps what you meant is "Any restrictive government legislation that limits what you can post online is a decrease in freedom"?

I'm not advocating what Sarkozy is pushing, certainly, just don't understand exactly what you're trying to say.

Its a delicate balance. What you're putting forward as "privacy" seems reasonable; you control information about yourself. What Sarkozy would seem to advocate as "privacy" involves controlling what one person can say about another, although he was so vague we can't be sure. Its one thing to keep safe the information that is typically considered highly personal; its another to say that everyone should be able to "live their lives in peace". You might be able to fit a piece of paper into the gap between the two, but its an important piece of paper.

Isaac Asimov wrote about the Galactic Empire in his Foundation series. In 'Foundation and Empire', he noted the three things that caused the collapse of the Empire: inertia, despotism, and maldistribution. The leaders feared change, they knew only force as their tool, and their goal was to keep the wealth they had gathered.

I see these factors at work in many of the governments of the world today. The Internet, like the technologically advanced Foundation of Asimov's novels, threatens all of them. Trying to "civilize" the Internet simply means bringing it under control, making it conform to the views of politicians who didn't grow up in a world that had it. Any effort to do so will fail, but I worry what will be attempted.

I just started reading this series! Post a spoiler alert dangit!

Oops. Well, I don't think I spoiled anything critical; its kind of an overarching concept rather than a true plot point. I'll be more careful, though.

Doesn't Ars typically argue for government regulation of the Internet on a weekly basis? Maybe Sarkozy should have claimed to be part of a self-described "consumer advocacy" group, and the reaction would be different.

Regulation of Internet Service Providers and broadband deployment is a far cry from regulation of the Internet itself.

4. "Artists "must not be despoiled of the fruit of their talent. That doesn't simply ruin them, but far worse, it enslaves them."" unless i am totally off target, most artists are already slaves to their publisher/record company/studio...

Nope, plenty of artists have brought this issue up as well.

Quote:

This is an unedited transcript of Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference, given in New York on May 16.

Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.

4. "Artists "must not be despoiled of the fruit of their talent. That doesn't simply ruin them, but far worse, it enslaves them."" unless i am totally off target, most artists are already slaves to their publisher/record company/studio...

And any artist who attempts to circumvent the existing master/slave relationships by, for example, self-publishing an e-book, will be banned from any and all distribution channels controlled by the establishment.

Good luck making a living as a writer if nobody will publish your work. Similar situations exist for virtually all artists. Perform at the "wrong" event and suddenly nobody will give you a stage to stand on.

Artists "must not be despoiled of the fruit of their talent. That doesn't simply ruin them, but far worse, it enslaves them."

I actually agree with this statement. The users of the Internet is partially enslaving the creators of works by allowing those works to be freely traded without compensation to the creator.

Of course, I still remain suspicious of Sarkozy's motivation - as I do with most politicians.

Slavery involves losing freedom. Artists have not lost freedom due to the internet. If artists have lost anything, it's the ability to extract rent from the social benefits of work that they've already done. That's not enslavement, that's bringing them to the reality that the rest of the world faces. Also, practically speaking, artists haven't suffered any problems because of the internet, but rather obsolete distributors have.

arsReader47 wrote:

theseum wrote:

At last, an Ars article that acknowledges (if perhaps unintentionally) that "privacy" isn't necessarily something we should be in favor of. Any increase in privacy is a decrease in freedom.

Can you expand a bit on that? For example, I fail to see how your freedom is somehow infringed by my right to keep private my personal health information, or current location if we think iPhone logs. Perhaps what you meant is "Any restrictive government legislation that limits what you can post online is a decrease in freedom"?

I'm not advocating what Sarkozy is pushing, certainly, just don't understand exactly what you're trying to say.

It's not that privacy is bad, but rather, that concerns for privacy must be checked against other things such as free speech.

Edzo wrote:

Doesn't Ars typically argue for government regulation of the Internet on a weekly basis? Maybe Sarkozy should have claimed to be part of a self-described "consumer advocacy" group, and the reaction would be different.

The only thing of that nature I can recall being advocated is net neutrality, and the purpose in pushing that is to protect consumers from ISPs, who have de facto monopolies in much of the world.

•"Although technology in and of itself is neutral, and must remain so, the way that Internet is used is not neutral."

What does this mean?

Quote:

•"The universe that you represent is not a parallel universe which is free of rules of law or ethics or of any of the fundamental principles that must govern and do govern the social lives of our democratic states."

What does this mean?

Quote:

•"Don't forget that behind the anonymous Internet user there is a real citizen living in a real society and a real culture and a nation to which he or she belongs, with its laws and its rules."

What is your point?

Quote:

•Artists "must not be despoiled of the fruit of their talent. That doesn't simply ruin them, but far worse, it enslaves them."

Others have addressed this better than I, but how does getting paid for work done years ago equate to freedom? If that work is no longer paid for, how is this slavery?

Quote:

•Governments "wish to enter into dialogue with you so that we can defend one another's interests."

At last, an Ars article that acknowledges (if perhaps unintentionally) that "privacy" isn't necessarily something we should be in favor of. Any increase in privacy is a decrease in freedom.

Can you expand a bit on that? For example, I fail to see how your freedom is somehow infringed by my right to keep private my personal health information, or current location if we think iPhone logs. Perhaps what you meant is "Any restrictive government legislation that limits what you can post online is a decrease in freedom"?

I'm not advocating what Sarkozy is pushing, certainly, just don't understand exactly what you're trying to say.

Privacy laws that regulate non-government entities by their very nature restrict freedom of others, but are justified by being "beneficial" to the majority. For instance your iPhone example; you don't care to be tracked by it so you'd want regulations placed on Apple, and other smartphone companies, to limit the collection of location data, but that regulation restricts the freedom of Apple and other smartphone companies to make and run their smartphones as they want. Ultimately if you don't care to be tracked don't use a phone that tracks you, that's your freedom.

Your personal health information, along with all the other information you choose to reveal to other parties is ultimately only revealed at your discretion. If you don't care to have it leaked to some third party don't reveal it anyone who doesn't say they won't reveal to them. Any regulations that limit what a company or person can do with information submitted willingly to them is limiting their freedom. Your freedom is choosing to reveal that information in the first place.

It is amazing how politicians think they are qualified to talk about civility when they are some of the most corrupt and uncivil people in modern society.

All I can say is: +1

P.S. They also don't know shit about internet and tehnology.

This and the discussions about COICA, are the beginning of the end. There will be two internets when this is all over. The internet for us and the internet for everyone else. Actually to be accurate the is already the case, except that the two networks talk to each other on a everyday basis. Controlling the internet is not like controlling alcohol or the war on drugs. Given the French governments history, they are the last ones to be lecturing the world about civilization. Without other countries that have come to its aid over the last thousand years there would be no France. Put simply. Mind your own f**king business.......

Doesn't Ars typically argue for government regulation of the Internet on a weekly basis? Maybe Sarkozy should have claimed to be part of a self-described "consumer advocacy" group, and the reaction would be different.

Unchecked speech threatens entrenched interests. That's the danger of a free internet and it must be stopped.

And the slow witted governments are just waking up to this now, when it's really already too late.

Of course it's OK for emergent and oppressed countries to use these tools to overthrow their dictators & regimes, but far be it from people in 'civilized' societies to have any voice in how they are governed!